Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Pintu Uttam Sonale, was convicted for offences under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. His appeal against conviction was dismissed by the High Court. He had been in prison for over five years and was granted parole for his brother's marriage, after which he surrendered voluntarily. He applied for furlough leave to visit his family, but the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons rejected his application on 20-04-2017, and the appellate authority (Additional Deputy General of Police and Inspector General Prison, Pune) upheld the rejection. The petitioner challenged these orders by way of a criminal writ petition. The High Court observed that furlough is a right of a prisoner, not a privilege, and can be denied only on grounds specified in the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. The authorities had rejected the application solely on the ground that the petitioner was convicted for a sexual offence under the POCSO Act, without considering his conduct, the period of incarceration, or the purpose of leave. The court held that the impugned orders were unsustainable and set them aside, directing the authorities to reconsider the petitioner's application for furlough leave on its own merits, in accordance with the rules.
Headnote
A) Prison Law - Furlough Leave - Right of Prisoner - Furlough is a right of a prisoner, not a privilege, and can be denied only on grounds specified in the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 - The court held that the authorities erred in rejecting furlough solely on the ground of the nature of the offence under the POCSO Act, without considering the petitioner's conduct and period of incarceration - Held that the impugned orders were unsustainable and set aside (Paras 7-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a convict under the POCSO Act can be denied furlough leave solely on the ground of the nature of the offence, without considering other relevant factors such as conduct and period of incarceration.
Final Decision
The impugned orders dated 20-04-2017 and the appellate order are quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the concerned authority to reconsider the petitioner's application for furlough leave on its own merits, in accordance with the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, without being influenced by the fact that the petitioner is convicted under the POCSO Act.
Law Points
- Furlough is a right of a prisoner
- not a privilege
- and can be denied only on grounds specified in the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules
- 1959
- The mere fact of conviction for a sexual offence under POCSO Act does not automatically disentitle a prisoner from furlough
- The authority must consider the prisoner's conduct
- period of incarceration
- and purpose of leave.
